[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You keep repeating this meme that the Second Amendment is not absolute. I don't even know what you mean by that."

I am absolutely certain you do know what I mean. George Soros shouldn't be allowed to be a nuke just because he can afford it.

Who should be allowed to own a nuke? Should governments be allowed to own a nuke? If so, why? Could you bear (carry) a nuke? Do the typical soldiers keep and bear nukes?

Similarly, one of the men who crafted the 2A, banned guns on the campus of the University of Virginia. it's not absolute. As far as my knowledge of history goes (which also isn't absolute) the guy who wrote it, didn't intend for it to be absolute.

The 2A, at the time, was a limitation on the federal government, not the states. And it certainly was not a limitation against private property owners, or private institutions, banning guns on their property. Nor did the 2A mean that you could just go about shooting at people or properties at will.

Clearly, given the importance of property rights to the Founders, the 2A was not intended that you could carry your weapon onto properties where the owner does not want you to do so. But neither of your examples addresses any limitation of the original 2A. There are obvious "limitations" on the carrying or using of your weapons. But what do those obvious limitations have to do with giving bones to anti-2A gun grabbers? On the grounds that the 2A is not absolute, what justifications are there for banning bump stocks or AR15s or semi-automatic guns?

I do not know what you mean by the 2A not being absolute in regards to the original 2A, its intention, and why it was created. You seem to want to come to some compromise with gun-grabbers that would destroy the original 2A and the reason for it. Your suggestions for banning the very things which would actually support the reason for the existence of the 2A don't address its absoluteness, or lack of it. They promote further degradation of it. They relegate it to some privilege the government grants and which the government can continuously reduce because there is no limitation against shrinking that which is not absolute. There is no end to the lack of absoluteness.

"WTF is wrong with you?"

Not a thing. You are the one who claims not to know what "absolute" means, and you are imagining that I said things that I never came close to saying. So I could ask you the same thing, but I respect you more than that.

Well, see, now you're the one imagining I said things that I never said. I said that I don't know what YOU mean by the 2A not being absolute.